Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2012/January

Fact Checking

I just want to be sure of my facts. I have tagged an article for a number of issues to do with notability, advocacy and for its promotional nature. A group of editors are tag teaming to remove the tags and pretend there isn't a problem. I don't wish to risk a block which is obviously their objective judging by their comments on my page. They've successfully intimidated other editors from editing with the same tactic. Would restoring tags while issues remain unresolved fall foul of 3RR? Wee Curry Monster talk 22:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know any of the other editors in question, so you can throw around accusations of WP:TAG, but have you considered how it makes you look to other editors when you throw around accusations and act in the manner you have been? Have you considered any other reasons for multiple editors reverting you? -Kai445 (talk) 21:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, just wow. Thanks for WP:AGF, Wee Curry Monster. Just...wow. Silverseren^C 22:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

"Some editors that are failing to gain consensus for their preferred changes will inappropriately accuse every editor that opposes them of being part of a 'tag team.'" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tag_team#False_accusations_of_tag-teaming Rings true in this case. JohnValeron (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

And the three of you are following my contributions shows that the "accusation" has the ring of truth about it. Doesn't it. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but I am most certainly not following your contributions, as I'm sure a WP Admin could readily confirm. I am following this page WT:EW. Your continued refusal to assume good faith and your repeated, ongoing, false accusations of being "tag teamed" are wholly unjustified. JohnValeron (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

[1],[2],[3] Three editors edit warring to remove tags designed to improve the article and issuing edit warning messages. And the same accusations, ad hominem attacks and all restoring dubious content from unreliable sources. WP:DUCK Quack, quack, quack. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Revert Question

If I undo my own edit or make edits on my user page is it considered a revert?

Technically it might be, but from the edit-warring point of view, no it's not.--Kotniski (talk) 08:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Is this a violation of 3RR?

I count four edits in a few hours with intervening edits.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Calvary_Chapel&diff=473082384&oldid=473009651
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Calvary_Chapel&diff=473083523&oldid=473082587
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Calvary_Chapel&action=historysubmit&diff=473089469&oldid=473084766
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Calvary_Chapel&action=historysubmit&diff=473091054&oldid=473090449

Anon and the other intervening editor claim it's not three reverts. Please weigh-in at the article or respond here and I'll summarize the discussion at the article's talk page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Please note relevant discussion here (textsearch for "3RR" to get to the start of the relevant part). --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

First a note to any interested party reading this is that I asked Walter to report this incident after he threatened to have me blocked for what he apparently sees as a 3RR violation. Any interested third party looking at the edit history from Hrafn's '17:24, 24 January 2012‎' edit forward will note the following:

1. the next edit by me undoes Hrafn's edit to a version preferred by myself and BlueMoonlet
2. Walter reverts my reversion, mistakenly citing restoration to a 'baseline version' (which Hrafn had only recently tried to establish)
3. I revert back to the version being discussed on talk page where Hrafn's edits had been questioned
4. Walter reverts back (edit war!) mistakently stating "This is an accepted revision. Take it to the talk page or yuor [sic] will be blocked"
5. I revert back and leave message on talk explaining that Walter's reverts are in error and that threatening to block me is disrespectful. Thankfully, Walter now stops the edit war reversions long enough for me to begin improving the article by addressing some citation/source concerns raised by Hrafn. I do the following edits generally one or two at a time to give other editors the opportunity to review each one.
6. My next edit removes a 'citation needed' and adds a ref in its place.
7. My next edit adds back a previously-removed word with a reference that includes that word.
8. My next edit removes a reference request that was superfluous (BlueMoonlet will later add in such a reference for good measure which we will soon see.)
9. My next edit removes a 'citation needed' and adds a ref in its place.
10. BlueMoonlet adds the aforementioned reference.
11. BlueMoonlet restores a third party tag since an RFP is in effect.
12. My next edit replaces a ref that 'failed validation' with a better one, adds a third-party reference to bolster a 'self reference', and removes the self-published tag since we now have third-party verification. Apparently this is the edit that starts what Walter sees as the beginning of my "4th revision" that would violate 3RR. We'll revisit this shortly.
13. My next edit replaces two refs that 'failed validation' with better ones.
14. My next edit adds back some content that I had inadvertantly removed in one of the previous edits (still not sure where I went wrong, but the idea was to clean up my own mess.) This is apparently the end of the "4th revision" proposed by Walter as being improper.
15. BlueMoonlet improves one of my added refs by using ref shorthand.

At the end of all of this effort, the article is improved. Here is the critical piece: 3RR talks about "[u]ndoing another editor's work", and Walter seems to be concerned that BlueMoonlet had edits in the middle of my work (as Blue says: "Yes, I made some intervening edits, but they were improving the work that IP was busy doing.") And Blue's edits survived my future edits and were, therefore, not reverted!! Yet Walter would rather (mistakenly, in my view and I believe Blue's as well) "be hard-and-firm on the rules" rather than be appreciative of a fellow editor's efforts to address challenges to the article's content. To wit: an hour after Blue and I finish our collaboration, Walter adds a 3RR template to my user page. Are you kidding me? And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why we are here today. Very sincerely, 71.199.242.40 (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't threaten you have you blocked, I added a template indicating that you had violated WP:3RR. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)